you have said that you do not really want to talk about the palestinian issue, although you have to a degree. >> i keep myself far from the palestinian issue. >> but do you think that the occupation is indeed really eroding the moral fiber of the israeli community? there've been several journalists who have talked about it. since the instability of the middle east has brought al qaeda to the doorstep of israel, with them getting footholds and syria, iraq and other places, are you concerned abbas and the palestinian authority may seem like lambs compared to what you may have to deal with if they got into the west bank? >> thank you. i completely disagree with you.

i think maybe it is important to clarify the first point. i do not see any occupation. to speak about occupation, and does not understand the history of this region and the facts. the palestinian authority, and the palestinian state did not exist before 1967. before then, they were divided between two countries. it was under full arab control. i do not remember from 1948 1967 they established a palestinian date.

today to speak about occupation, it is a miss understanding of history of this region. i do not why people think that the palestinian state existed before 1967, before 1948, or even in history. we are ready to share this small land. all israel, 21,000 square kilometers, we are willing to share with our neighbors and to sacrifice. only israel made real steps in order to establish peace in this region of and would give up sinai, would give up half of gaza, half of judea and samaria. we proved our real desire to achieve peace, and to speak about occupation, it is really prejudiced, biased approach to

this problem. it is not a problem of territory. it is completely different programs. i will never accept this approach to speak about the occupation, as an obstacle to peace. no, the opposite is true, but the facts and history are clearly different. thank you. >> i want to thank anybody who spends an hour answering questions. i appreciate it. and i know we all appreciate you being here to take our questions. it is good have you back in washington. we look forward to talking to you. >> it is good to be back. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, before we are dispersed for the evening, i have a few key announcements. as you know, tomorrow we have some very special guests joining us. for those of you who are delegates, it is very important that you meet with us tomorrow morning upstairs by 8:30 a.m. to get your registration materials, and to learn about the security procedures for tomorrow. thank you very much for being with us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the house is coming in in little less than an hour from now. later today, a justice childment study us eight abuse penalties. for more about what congress accomplish, we talk with a capitol hill reporter. news editor athe

"the hill" newspaper. reports have put out, we expect a deal to come as early as this week. what does that he'll look like? x it will not be the grand bargain -- >> it will not be the grand bargain. they will be looking at tax hikes, but not looking at significant cuts to medicare, medicaid, or for social security, which are areas republicans say need something to be done. they are looking at a pretty small thing, over whether to have a federal employees contribute more to their retirement plans. democrats are trying to keep them lower than republicans. getting looking at funds by selling a spectrum that will be sold to telephone companies. they are looking at a small touch deal that would replace

some of the sequester, the automatic spending cuts that were launched in 2011. that was part of a different edge process. host: why can't there be such an desk something like a grand bargain? guest: the two parties can agree. are not willing to cut medicaid, and republicans are not willing to do tax hikes. paul ryan and patty murray basically decided that they were not going to go after the sacred cow of the other party. they were just going to it something that was possible, and they decided by looking at all these failed attempts in the past, we will not go there. we will do something that is much smaller, but doable. host: we are talking with ian swanson. there will still be a big budget debate in early 2014. what does that look like? will: one thing this deal

not do is it will not raise the debt ceiling. at some point exterior they will have to do that. it is a legal -- little difficult to forecast when it will be, in part because the economy is starting to behave more strongly and as a result that extends the time in which the treasury department can do things. they call them extraordinary measures, to prevent hungers from having to raise the debt ceiling. at some point in time congress will have to do that. the earliest is february, but much more likely that it is sometime close to the spring or even the beginning of the summer . then you will get the same debate over what to cut, whether we should look at tax hikes or entitlements. it is hard to see how they are going to get any kind of agreement on those areas, or to give only in an election year. host: turning away from the budget, the house is expected to

adjourn on friday, and the senate shortly thereafter. a lot of high-profile legislation hanging in the balance. tell us about what is likely to make it to before the end of the 113th congress? that ishe only thing completely likely to get through it is a new defense authorization act. there will be a lot of interesting debates to watch on that to see what gets included. one thing we will watch is to see whether any legislation sanctioning iran is added to the bill. the administration is doing everything it can to prevent congress from doing that, but a lot of members are still interested in adding sanctions, sending signals they are not interested in the deal obama wants to sign onto. also the farm bill. negotiators are trying to reach an agreement. if they cannot get a deal, they will have to at least extend existing spending so that is something that can be done. the senate is here for an extra week. they will look at a lot of

nominations, particularly after the filibuster changes that democrats rammed through a few weeks ago. among the big nominees to watch for are the new chairwoman of the federal reserve, janet yellen. host: a number of articles in the last couple of weeks have suggested that this is the most unproductive covers ever. why has this year been so hard to get into and out on capitol hill? guest: it is divided government. the senate is run by the cuts come at the house are republicans. whenever you have that, it is tough to get it enough. in the republican conference you have a situation where bishop for a long time -- where leadership for a long time now has not been completely been able to control their members. they cannot count on them all the time. congress is rather divide. there's a lot of opposition to president obama within the house republican conference. they do not make him arise easy. we are in a unique time in history where no one is really

able to get along or to agree on any of the big things, and really, even a lot of the smaller things. one last point i would make is that a lot of republicans say theiro not think measures should be not in passing bills, but trying to defund the health care law would be more productive. host: thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. >> on update on the defense bill. then the house meets at 5:00. on the agenda, requiring a study of state child abuse penalties. >> i got upset with the they coveredause my mental health work the first

few meetings i had, and then they never showed up anymore, and one day i was walking in the downstairs floor in the white house and met this woman who was one of the press people. nobody ever covers my meeting. she said, is not just a sexy issue. we toured the country, found out what was needed, developed legislation, and past the mental health assistance act of 1980 -- healththe mental assistance act of 1980, and it passed to congress. one of the greatest disappointments of my life, it was never implemented. first lady rosalynn carter tonight at 9:00 eastern, also on c-span radio and www.c-span.org.

the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is pressing congress to act this year on defense policy bill. dempsey wrotee -- to house and senate leaders warning this would add more uncertain to the force and, kate the work of military commanders. the leaders of committees are : 30ing a conference at four eastern to discuss details of the compromise. that is in about 15 minutes. we will have live coverage on c- span. in the meantime come and look at this morning's "washington journal." each week we take a look at how your taxpayer dollars are spent there it the focus this week is the cost of military personnel. we are joined by andrew til ghman.

-- walk us through your piece. when ithe peace started realized after listening to a lot of discussion about the andnse budget in general personal costs in particular that there were all sorts of numbers thrown around in terms of personnel costs. some people said it was soon to be 80% of the budget. what take a close look at specifically the budget documents were showing. specifically, i started with secretary haeckel made a comment about a month ago where he said personnel costs are going to be about half the defense budget. i went to the defense office's and they showed that costs had gone up a lot, but when you compare them to the discuss

budget at large, they had gone up, maybe a little bit less. despite all the talk about personnel costs rising, which they certainly have -- as a percentage of the defense budget, which is relative to the conversation, they are shrinking a little bit. host: let's listen to defense secretary chuck hagel's comments on the issue. then we will come back to andrew tilghman of "the military times." >> without serious attempts to achieve savings in our budget that are consuming roughly about half the dod budget and is increasing every year, we risk becoming an unbalanced force, one that is well compensated but poorly trained and equipped with limited readiness and capability. going forward, we will have to make hard choices in this area in order to ensure that our defense enterprise is sustainable for the 21st century. host: that was defense secretary

chuck hagel speaking. andrew tilghman from "military times," walk us through what he said and what are the actual costs of personnel for our military. guest: the secretary is certainly right that the cost of military personnel has grown a lot over the past 10 years. there have been a lot of pay raises, particularly in the early part of past decade were the wars in iraq and afghanistan were at their peak. congress has granted additional benefits to military personnel. but what the secretary does not talk about is the percentage of that growth relative to everything else. what i found is that when i dug into the budget documents from the dod website, really what i found was that personnel costs are indeed rising, but so is the money for operations. so is spending on buying new weapons systems, and so is spending on research and

development. the pie is growing at a very great rate, but each slice of the pie, personnel and everything else, is not really growing at a significant rate over any of the other ones. host: we would love to hear from you. many servicemembers coming home are military, our military is getting smaller. what would you say to those people? guest: i think there is a lot of reason to think that military costs, even if they might not

begin to shrink, certainly the rate of growth is going to fall off a lot for a lot of reasons. one is we are bringing troops, some from afghanistan. we are mobilizing a lot fewer reservists. we are going to be dropping the size of the army, the marine corps, and i think the air force as well. beyond that, we will not have the same kind of pay raises, the generous pay raises we saw in 2003 through 2006. congress added a lot of benefits like stepping up the health-care benefit for servicemembers during that period. they stepped up the housing allowance benefit, and that is not where the politics on the hill are with spending these days. i think that is a critical part of the discussion, the rate of growth on personnel costs will not be what it was the past 10 or 12 years. host: a major story estimates

that roughly $92,000 is the annual personnel cost per active-duty member. when we say personnel cost, what is being counted with that number? guest: that is an important question because the pentagon accounting methods are arcane and confusing. what we did here to avoid the fuzzy math issue, we look at specifically the line item in the budget called military personnel. what this includes is active- duty pay, active-duty housing allowance because some of your viewers may know the military provides a tax-free stipend for housing for servicemembers, which in the washington area can be over $2000 per month. that also includes retirement accrual. there is a generous retirement account for people serving over 20 years, and some health-care costs. that does not include the

operations at some hospitals, child care services and other benefits that certainly would fall under the category of being a full compensation of servicemembers. we looked at a very strict basic military personnel, the things that come to the military servicemembers in the form of specific benefits. host: let's go to thomas in laguna woods, california, on our lines for democrats. thomas, turn down on your tv or radio. i am having trouble hearing you from the background noise. caller: thank you. my question is, everybody wants to get the military costs down. if all the countries that want to go to war with the united states would realize that if they would not fight us we would send them half of our costs, we would send half the cost to them once a year not to fight.

the other thing, if we do win and if all the world knew that if the united states does win, you are going to have to sell ferraris and pay the taxpayers back. guest: i think the caller makes an interesting point in terms of what the threats are out there and the actual costs of going to war when the country decides to do it, and i think that that is a question that really affects the whole range of the defense budget in terms of not only personnel but also in terms of what kind of weapons system we buy, the kind of bases we maintain overseas. those are questions the defense department is wrestling with across the board right now, which is why there is such a tension between these various areas of the budget. if the budget is going to come

down, as has been legally mandated under sequestration laws, which component of the budget is going to take the biggest hit? host: next, from california, daniel is on our line for republicans. caller: i just wanted to ask why can't we, with our technological abilities now, draw down a lot of manpower and keep -- because we have many nations in the world with armies that can provide military support for the united states, for advancing democracy and freedom. i don't see why we all have to go broke to support all these other countries and their defense when there are many other nations with militaries just like ours. guest: i think daniel makes a couple of interesting points there.

one of the issues diplomatically we are having is a lot of our allies are trying to cut their own defense budgets for obvious reasons, and that is a concern of the pentagon. the other point is the fact that we have so much more technology these days. i talked to several people that suggested to me that, yes, the cost per person has gone up a lot, but that makes sense considering these are not the sort of ground-pounding trigger pullers we may have had in the army 30, 40 years ago. the people in the service these days are much more highly educated and well trained. they are dealing with complex software systems and they are costing more because we invest a lot more in them and it costs more to retain them. there are opportunities in the private sector that are greater. part of the thing driving these

military personnel costs to some degree is the technological advancement and the fact that we are expecting -- what we are expecting out of them in terms of training and performance is higher than it was 23 years ago. host: earlier you mentioned the cost of military pay. a "new york times" op-ed last month suggested that military pay should be put on the table. host: do you think it is likely that pay would be a target as the pentagon looks to cut costs? guest: i think that pay as a target is an interesting idea. i don't think anyone is going to

flat-out reduce military pay. "the new york times" editorial notes this is a politically and emotionally fraught area of the budget to be debating. i cannot imagine an area where people would be saying you are going to be getting less than this year. what they are talking about doing this year is lowering the pay raise so it is less than the normal cost-of-living increase. right now the debate on the hill is whether to increase military pay next year by 1.8%, which could track with the general private sector increase, which would be a raise nominally, but it would be less than the cost of increase. over several years you would see military pay would slowly come down relative to private-sector wages. that is really what the writing on the wall is that i see. we are not going to cut military

pay, but we are going to be raising it at a far slower rate so that over time, five or 10 years, you will see relative military pay will be falling. host: let's go to our line for active and retired military. john is on from oregon. john, are you with us? caller: yes, i am here. i have a quick comment on this, and i am so tired of hearing these people in washington, d.c., tell me that i am overpaid and that i receive too many benefits. i spent 20 years defending this country. i barely make over $1000 a month in retirement benefits. if i were to go into congress today and be fired tomorrow, my

starting pay for a congressman would be $16,000 a month. if i got fired tomorrow, it would stay the same. you want to cut costs in government, start with the senate and the house of representatives. guest: your thoughts? caller: john, if i could ask, what is the pay grade that you retired at? host: he is not there. caller: john makes an interesting point, and it is one i hear all the time from service members and particularly retired service members who are getting these benefits and they feel it is really like a violation of the contract that they felt they had with the american people to hear this discussion about cutting benefits. i suspect he probably left the service as an enlisted member.

as many people may know, the difference in pay between officers and enlisted is quite dramatic. it is sort of two different conversations when you talk about pay being generous -- it is easy to put the officer's salary there and say this is very generous, but then you look at the enlisted salary and the benefits -- based on the conversation you had once you were in the service, it is not necessarily a dramatic benefit. john is probably in his 50's. he may have some low-grade physical injuries that limit his ability to work in some capacity. he gets probably $1000 a month or so in retirement pay. that is certainly a very good discussion for people to have on the hill. it is examples like john that point out the emotional nature of this conversation. host: hamilton, ohio.

jim is also on our line for active and retired military. caller: hello? yes, good morning. the question i got, does this include the cost of all these private contractors that are required to do everything for the servicemen, where in fact guest: that is a really interesting thought. that is what we talk about with military personnel costs. story we stuck to the part of the budget call the military personnel. that was limited to uniform service members. roughly 800,000 civilian employees, that is any different part of the budget.

not technically in the military budget. what when you saw the , he said's comments that military is about part of cap the budget. you have to begin including some civilian employees and their. -- in there.oint that is the point. they're going to be under a lot of pressure in the next two years. they are the political low hanging fruit. they do not have the constituency. they do not have the emotional support. going back to your comments on enlisted pay, --eone on twitter rights

that? what percent does guest: a very large percentage of the force does not serve more than four to eight years. that is worth noting. a critical mass of the forces is located. the military retirement benefit four outenerous, but of five people who serve in the military never reach 20 years. less people will clear the twenty-year mark and collect the retirement benefit. there are hundreds of thousands of people coming in and going out every year. they are serving for eight, 10 years and leaving without any

benefit at all. that is part of the discussion. it is about trying to make it fair to those people who serve a short time. host: in salt lake city, utah. michael is on the line for democrats. caller: hello. ask if there's about the people who and can apply for social security benefits like everybody else. i don't know about that. there have been extreme cases where there was severe physical disability.

to your point about social .ecurity, yes they can claim social security, but only after they reach the age of 65. you can have a guy who analyst in the navy at the age of 18. he serves 20 years. he is out of the navy before he has 40 years old. he is going to get some sort of retirement benefit immediately. and then he is probably going to live, based on the average life expectancy, another 30 or 40 years. we pay people for 60 years to serve only 20. that is probably one of the sensitive things on the table, in terms of whether that is really the best way to do things, in terms of providing that paycheck immediately upon retirement. let's go to fred in new

york. caller: thank you. hello? is, is there any reason why we can't bring back the draft system that we had back in vietnam? guest: the draft system. i think that the main reason we don't bring it back, in addition to that there is a not a lot of support for it on capitol hill, is that because there's not a lot of support in the pentagon. the general conventional wisdom is that post-vietnam -- we ended the draft in 1973. we have had a volunteer forces than. the conventional force is that we have a much more wild is one force because people choose to sign up.

in order to start draft, you have to send thousands of people in who didn't want to be there. you would have a whole" out in disciplinary issues that the military doesn't want to deal host ofa whole disciplinary issues that the military doesn't want to deal with. what about the rollback of the sequestration cuts? talk about how sequestration plays into this debate. guest: sequestration is critical to the debate. sick restriction is capping the spending levels at roughly where 2011, 2012 baby. the budget has grown very rapidly since then. 2012 maybe.

the budget has grown very rapidly since then. it has been jarring on every aspect of the military. congress has told the pentagon that they have to limit their time,ng, but at the same there are similar laws that require them to increase military pay at a certain rate. the pentagon cannot just change the military retirement system. they have to get approval from congress. there is a concern that within the pentagon budget military costs are going to continue to grow. and the overall budget will remain flat. the pot will not grow anymore. the personal costs will begin to overwhelm other aspects of the budget. that said, you could say that about any other prospective budget too.

have grown quickly too. if you don't do something about weapons acquisition that could impact the budget. there are a lot of weapons and not enough able to operate them. imposed anon just incredibly urgent pressure on the dod budget. leaders of the pentagon have only begun to accept that. ears theys -- for y pretended that was not going to happen. weeks we havefew seen them wrestle with the questions about how we are going to meet the spending caps. host: i'll call from detroit, michigan on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. a few things i would like to discuss.

the reason why we won't have a draft is because wealthy people their children will not have to go to war. i remember during the vietnam war were people enrolled in --lege and took back it basket weaving in order to get out of the draft. that is how the whole stand. i personally believe that not all the people who enlist our going there because they're wanted to be in the army. it is a matter of fact that they can't get a job here. that was just a side comment. on c-span, within the last few months, they had someone talking about the lavish lifestyle of generals and the upper officers, where they have lavish dinner parties with soldiers serving them. they live lives of luxury.

i think, from what i've observed, we have an excess of military officers. bequestion is, how can they removed so we don't have to pay for that lovely lifestyle? wars,put ourselves into these generals start to feel that they are absolutely necessary. guest: the caller makes an interesting point. it is something that the pentagon has been talking about for several years. defenseer secretary of started the conversation years ago when he pointed out that the number of general entitlement faster than grown the size of the force in general , even in times of war.

a large bureaucracy. support staff. they get perks. that a significant problem i think they are starting to address. it is difficult politically does these are the people that run asking them tond talk themselves and their friends out of the job is something that takes a while. recently, the secretary he hadnse to, last week, a discussion about this in his office. that is a small part of the overall military. but they are looking at some of these jobs as a way to reduce bureaucracy. it is really a small fraction of the costs, but it would be very

symbolic in terms of making the force stronger. militarythe pay for personnel involved in combat and those not involved in combat the same? guest: interesting question very -- question. the fact that when ,ou deploy into a combat zone you get something called combat pay, danger pay, that sort of thing. it is a few hundred dollars a month. when you're actually in a war zone getting shot at your getting paid more. but in terms of, being an infantryman, and think that is your career, when you are at home training, you don't get

paid anymore for being in that career field than someone who is basically like a secretary or a medic, or a lawyer or something. there is some conversations. but a lot of people would point out that it is not that dramatic, considering the very different types of jobs that we're are talking about, in terms of combat and noncombat. ods --ow much does the dod spent on stimulus to various sectors of the economy that has nothing to do with national defense. point, the hospitality industry and the airline industry. the dod pays full fare for every plane ticket they purchase, seemingly so that they can get a refund if the ticket is not used. the savings on the unused tickets does not come close to equaling the amount of money they pay for all the tickets at full fare.

the government pays full rate for every hotel room we stay in. that don't like someone who has been in the military. that is a really informed question and informed comment. the question was roughly how on, money is being spent the questioner refers to it as non-national security related things, but i think military service members move around just as a matter of routine. --y move every two years three years or so from one based or another. between $12,000 and $50,000 to take someone from texas to send us he -- tennessee

and get them set up in a similar job. that is a really huge expense. that is billions of dollars if you add that up on an annual basis. many places that the pentagon is talking about trying to find a way to slow down those rates. they want to leave service members in one place for longer. that is simply because it just cost too much. the truth be told, the service members like the idea of sticking around. know, a lot of them don't look forward to the frequent moves. the ones that i have talked to like to stay. to tell a service member that they can stay in one place for five or six years at a time is good.

good morning. i have heard rumors that we have an admiral for any ship in the navy. how many admirals do we actually have in the navy? thank you very much for your time. have a good day. guest: i would want to double check this, but i believe we have more admirals in the navy then we have -- than we have ships. if there is a ship at sea, that is not an admiral. he is going to be a captain or lower rank than admiral. that is a really good point. to the previous scholars point -- caller's point. >> i am buck mckeon from the 20

the district. i am joined by the chairman from michigan. he is the chairman of the armed services committee. and i am joined by ranking member of the senate committee. thousands held up. he is not able -- the house is not -- is held up. that,leased to announce working together, members of the senate and house armed services committees, have reached an agreement for the fiscal year. some of you have speculated we wouldn't be able to do that this year. and that we would pass with only the essential authority. -- i doased to say that

not want to say that we proved you wrong -- but that is basically what happened. we are offering a full, competence of built. 0-- bill. floor.ed in june on the the same day the senate passed their bill out of the committee with a vote of 23-3. we know that the senate ran out of time to fully finish their bill on the floor. -- they had worked on an agreement for 25 amendments for the republicans and 25 for the house because the time ran out. aboute able to go through 87 amendments, 79 of which have been debated and are included within the bill, as if they were

passed on the senate floor. we have worked across party lines. we have come up with some very important things in this bill. i am going to hit on a couple of the overseas, military action fact. by ours worked on ranking member adam smith. this gives us the opportunity and ability to oversee our forces overseas. that was probably one of the biggest issues that we address this year. and the sexual assault caucus did tremendous work, as did joe wilson and susan davis, the ranking member of our committee.

we held numerous hearings and really work hard on this issue to come up with some very good changes. grandfather of a young and beautiful granddaughter, i am very pleased with what they worked out to work on sexual assault prosecution and prevention. that is an issue that has been with us for a long time. we found common ground on detainees where they will not be able to be brought into this country. some of the certification requirements for former transfers have been replaced a negotiated. i wish we a time for more full debate on this. this point,ere, at saying we are where we are.

we owe the men and women in uniform and the national security to finish this bill. our plan is to bring it to the floor this week. get it passed. send it to the senate. i would like to pass this over to tell us howin we're going to proceed from here. much chairmano mckeon. and thank you to the ranking members of the senate and house armed services committees. has describedn the point where we are at. our hope is that we will get thisto the house floor week so i can come to the senate. that is the first important

step. if that succeeds, and it comes to the senate, we will be in next week and will have a chance to take up the bill. if this is the only way we can pass the bill this year, it is not the first time something like this happen. twice in the last five years have we been in a position where we had to pass a bill that had not been fully amended or completed on the senate floor. we added huge numbers of amendments in committee. aurora number of debates on the senate floor. billsre were a number of on the senate floor. there were two on sexual assault. they passed those amendments, which we wanted to debate and get them put it on. we could not that get -- we could not get them to debate.

mentioned, mckeon this has a combination of the provisions on sexual assault from about the house and the senate. these are extremely important provisions. -- rather than me going through them, i think you'll have a list. i would be happy to answer questions that are in this bill to try to endult the excessive numbers of sexual misconduct that still occurs. this is why it was critically important that we pass this bill. this is going to extend hardship duty pay. this bill takes half of what we .id in the senate and passes it

it gives flexibility to the president to transfer detainees from guantanamo bay to third countries. it maintains the prohibition on transferring detainees here for trial and detention. we compromised it in that way. there are about half of the detainees that could be transferred. about half of the detainees will bay becauseantanamo of the prohibition on transferring them to united states for detention and for trial. change inde a major the area of the ucmj, the so- called article 32 process. it is more like a grand jury process which has the purpose of determining if it is probable

cause rather than a discovery proceeding. , thexual assault cases victim sometimes has to appear and be involved in cross examination. are changes in general on a preliminary procedure that takes place in the military. there are withdrawal provisions. three of them had to be extended or else the withdrawals would have ended, would have would've leftich our military without proper training facilities. this will allow the ring core two expenditure in your area. provided funding to deal with the iranian stockpile. been on the senate floor for about one week.

bring during the week to amendments to be debated and voted on. unfortunately, we didn't have a great deal of success, or will that regard. -- in that regard. mentioned,nts that i that have been only debated, we could not get consent to go to a vote. we sought clearance to adopt 40 cleared amendments. we could not get consent. we tried to address an additional 26 amendments to have them debated, 13 on each side. we were unable to do that. the reality is that the house of representatives is going to adjourn on friday. there is no way to get a defense bill passed this year, except the way that we are proposing. there is no way that we can

, or bring back the bill that was on the senate floor, considering that you have to pass a bill, go to conference with the house, get a conference report written, and have a conference report adopted by the house of representatives before friday. circumstances, the only way that we are going to be a will to pass this senate bill that reaching an agreement at least has a chance of getting passedthout amendment -- without amendment in both houses. it has happened a couple of times before. it is not the way we desire to legislate. we would do this differently if we could. but if that is not the world we now live in.

the worldly live in has troops who need our help. it has families who need our support. authoritiesber of to assist. there's a letter we were handing out by general dempsey. i think copies are available for all. it lists all of the authorities. combat pay is just one of the authorities. we need to pass a bill this year. --t is what our ropes are hopes are. i agree with both speakers. this is not the way we would like to do it. we got to appoint a week ago today where this was the only point we could do it. there are some issues important to consider. considered 87we

amendments that have been brought up. we passed 79 of them. that is kind of hard to do. it would have been hard to do on the floor. this bill is really significant. you have to consider, as members of the media, that the choices are not do you want to have a bill the way we are doing it here or have won in the normal way it takes place. it is not possible any longer. the normal way it take splace. it is not possible any longer. time to go thee process where you are going to have amendments and these considerations. that is behind us. what is not been said is that people are saying, can you go into january?

first of all, it has never gone into january in the last 52 years. the only time it has gone in -- >> we are recording the rest of this conference. we will bring it to you later this evening. go to a conversation dealing with child abuse penalties. recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3627, the kilah davenport child protection act of 201. the clerk: a bill to require the attorney general to report on state law penalties for certain child abusers and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins and the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries will each control 20 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i ask members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials under h.r. 3627. the bill under consideration today, the kilah davenport child protection act of 2013 is named after a young girl from north carolina who was brutally beaten by her stepfather just last year. her stepfather was charged with felony child abuse. kilah who was three years old will face a lifetime of brain damage and paralysis at the hands of someone who is supposed to love and protect her. stories like these are tragic but not uncommon across our country. 3.5 million cases of child abuse involving six million children are reported every year in the united states. in my own state of georgia, 37,000 reports of child abuse

and neglect with 15,000 of substantiated abuse in 2013 and the rates are higher in indian country, which is at a hire rate. adding to those and these tragedies is the fact that child abuse cases are not always reported and not prosecuted with the same vigor. studies have been found that these cases have lower incarceration rates. h.r. 3627 introduced by mr. pittenger of north carolina will draw attention to the child abuse cases are handled by requiring the justice department to issue reports on child abuse in the 50 states, the district of columbia and u.s. territories. this report is focused on state statutes because most child abuse cases are handled at the state level. however, there are parts of the country where the federal government has increased law enforcement role such as indian

country. h.r. 3627 helps to strengthen the federal response to child abuse and other forms of domestic violence in indian country and territorial jurisdictions by amending sections to allow prior convictions to trigger habital offender stutes. this is an important change to permit the federal government to prosecute more violent offenders. i commend the gentleman from from north carolina and encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. jeffries: i yield myself such time as i may consume. we rise to consider the h.r. 3627 the kilah davenport child protection act of 2013. this legislation is part of the continuing effort to stamp out

child abuse in our society. each year there more than three million reports of child abuse in the united states, six million children are impacted on an annual basis. every day, an average of four to seven children die in this great country as a result of child abuse and neglect. and more than 78% of reported child fatalities resulting from abuse and neglect were caused by one or more of the victims' parents. we must do everything in our power to change this sad reality. our effort, of course, must be comprehensive and should include robust criminal enforcement and parental education and prevention efforts. in other words, our approach should be balanced. those who abuse children must understand that the consequences connected to their criminal

behavior will be significant. we must also aggressively take steps to prevent child victimization before it occurs. in doing so, we can mitigate the severe trauma of child abuse and at the same time channel precious taxpayer resources away from the criminal screws ties system. h.r. 3627 requires the attorney general to issue a report regarding the penalties for violations of laws prohibiting child abuse in the 50 states, the district of columbia and u.s. territories. this report must consider, of course, whether those laws enhance penalties when the victim has permanent or protracted loss or impairment of mental or emotion function as occurred in this tragic case referred to in north carolina. this reporting requirement is a

good step toward helping congress accurately evaluate the statutory landscape in the child abuse context and govern in a more informed fashion. the legislation permits prior convictions for assault, sexual abuse or serious violent felonies to trigger additional penalties for habital domestic abusers on native american reservations and maritime and territorial jurisdictions. this trigger will better protect potential child abuse victims from repeat offenders. for the above-referenced reasons, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: i would like to recognize the author of this legislation, gentleman who has great passion, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pittenger: thank you, mr. speaker and mr. collins. i rise today on behalf of precious kilah davenport, a sweet little girl at the age of three years old was taken by her caregiver and bashed her head against the wall, kilah has suffered irreparable damage to the extent at this point, she is immobile and paralyzed and has suffered severe brain damage. you can see pictures right here of kilah, a young girl and then the next day, the condition that she's in. she's made some progress. her family is encouraged. they assist her 24/7. it's changed their lives. but to the credit of the davenport family, they wanted what occurred to their child to make sure that that never happened again. and they focus their attention

and their efforts, their commitment to passing a law in north carolina where i live, and now we have a statute that gives a minimum sentence of 10 years anyone who's convicteded of this egregious child abuse. at this time, the sentence for such abuse was four years, maximum, six years. this type of severe cruelty warrants a measure of sentencing commensurate with what has been enacted. and so i congratulate my colleagues whom i served with at one time in the north carolina senate, and the house, house members, for the leadership they gave in north carolina and provided what will be, i truly

believe a real model for the rest of the country because, mr. speaker, the purpose of the kilah davenport child protection act is to give a basis for other states appealing to them through their attorney generals to issue these reports, the first one in six months, the next one, three years following, of their current statutes on child abuse and their sentencing. we have found in my states that there are very minimum. in the south, there is one state that it's a year and a day could be the maximum state. one state in the northeast is seven years. one state out west is five years is the max sentence. this shouldn't be. we feel like there are many states who once they understand

how limited the scope is of this sentencing that they would want to change it. yes, mr. speaker, i do believe that these types of bills are better addressed in our states. i believe that other states will take the proper action, as north carolina did, and as i consulted with law enforcement and with judges who handle child abuse daily, that's why i introduced h.r. 3627, which is a bipartisan legislation that will address this severe need to make sure that children in the future are not harmed in the same way. this bill will ensure that those who suffer serious bodily jury, mental and emotional disparity and function would be addressed with the types of sentencing that would warrant

the type of crime committed. i believe, mr. speaker, that as we enact this bill that we will see a tremendous impact throughout the country to prevent this type of scurge from occurring again. so i commit it to our congress. i thank the great support of the members to make sure that this bill is enacted. i thank senator burr for his leadership in the senate and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. collins: we will reserve. we have no other speakers. prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. jeffries: i have no additional speakers and prepared to close. i commend the gentleman from north carolina for putting forth his measure in the house and enact it into law and i commend the davenport for their courage, strength and perseverance and

wish them god speed as to the recovery of their child moving forward and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. collins: mr. speaker, just in closing, it is good to be with my friends down here and the bill is commonsense language and addresses issues such as child abuse and the consequences of the davenport family. and with that, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jabblet. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3627. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the

speaker, house of representatives, sir, on december 4, 2013, pursuant to section 3307 of title 4 of the united states code, the committee on transportation and infrastructure met in open session to consider resolutions authorize five perspectives ncluding in g.s.a.f.y. 2011, f.y. 2014, capital investment and leasing programs, our committee continues to to work to continue to cut waste. resolutions approved by the committee will save the taxpayer 12.9 million annually. these resolutions ensure savings through lower rent and shrinking the space requirements of agencies. with these resolutions, the total savings for g.s.a. approved by the committee this year is over $668 million.

one of the resolution approved on december 4 is for a lease replacement of the nuclear regulatory commission in rockville, maryland. this was a lease perspective ubmitted as part of the 2011 clip. as they agreed to reduce their space, n.r.c. has not done so. after working with them, the committee brokered an agreement that will put 1,100 employees by having space back filled by the food and drug administration, f.d.a. a result, f.d.a. has agreed to relinquish four leases. letters from the n.r.c. and f.d.a. acknowledging this agreement are enclosed. i have enclosed copies of the five resolutions adopted by the committee on transportation and infrastructure on december 4, 2013, signed sincerely, bill

shuster, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on appropriations. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable, the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to section 1238 b-3 of the flood b. spent national authorization amended by . 7002 division p of the consolidated appropriations resolution, i am pleased to reappoint the following individuals to the united states-china economic and security. d.c. rt mue of washington thank you for our attention to these appointments. signed sincerely, nancy pelosi, democratic leader. . .

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a mess amming. the clerk: pursuant to the social security act as amended by the social security amendments of 1977, public law an 432e1, i transmit agreement of it's between the united states of america and the swiss confederation signed at bern. the agreement consists of two instruments, a principal agreement and an administrative agreement and will replace the agreement between the united swiss of america and the confederation signed in 1979. the agreement with the implementation of the agreement on social security of july 18, 1979, signed december 0, 1979, and the supplementary agreement between the two contracting

states signed june 1, 1988, u.s.-swiss agreement is similar in objective to the social security agreements already in force with most of the european union member states, australia, canada, chile, and the republic of korea. such bilateral agreements provide for limited coordination between the united states and foreign social security systems to eliminate dual social security coverage and taxation and to help prevent the loss-benefit protection that can occur when workers divide their careers between two countries. the principal updates included -- include amendments to the rules for swiss disability pension paid to ensure equality of treatments between the u.s. and swiss nationals. upon the personal information and confidentiality provisions and modifications necessary to take into account changes in u.s. and swiss law since 1988, u.s.-swiss agreement contains all provisions man tated by section 233 of the social

security act and other provisions that i deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 233, pursuant to section 233c-4 of the social security act i also transmit for the information of the congress a report prepared by the social security administrate explaining the key points of the u.s.-swiss agreement along with a paragraph by paragraph explanation of the provisions of the agreement and administrative arrangement and next to this report is the report required by section 243-e-1 on the social security act on the numb of individuals affected by the agreement and the effect of the agreement on the estimated income and expenditures of the u.s. social security program. the department of state and the social security administration have recommended the u.s.-swiss agreement and related documents to me. i commend the u.s.-swiss agreement on social security and related documents. signed, barack obama, the white house, december 10 -- december

9, 2013. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on ways and means and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina eek recognition? does the gentleman have a motion to adjourn. >> yes, mr. speaker, i do move that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands

centralis really the circulatory system of the economy. arteries veins and that really connect what is now the information economy in the united states. we are seeing the networks increase at a rate of 40% per year. they connect all the communication whether they originate any wireless or wired lined environment.

the future of the communications industry tonight on c-span 2. >> i got upset with the press the mentaly covered health word in the first few meetings i had. that never showed up in a more. this woman who was one of the press people. but we toured the country and found out what was needed. the mental systems act of 1980.

it was passed before the incoming president determined. that is tonight on c-span and c-span3. >> president obama is on his way to south africa. he died last week at the age of 95. by formerited presidents george w. bush and former president clinton. the prime minister and other members of the house economy where there. this is one hour and a half.

>> order. order. the house will wish to know how we proceed today. the questions will be carried over. office will announce consequential changes shortly. this is a special day for special tributes to a special .tatesman, nelson mandela i hope that as many members as possible will be able to contribute. contributions will continue until 10:00 p.m..

the house will also wish to know that there will be an event to commemorate and celebrate the life and achievements of nelson mandela taking place in westminster hall on thursday the 12th of december. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> nelson mandela was a towering figure in our lifetime. we are here to celebrate his character, his achievements, and his legacy. condolence books have been organized. tos evening we will fly south africa to attend the service and johannesburg. and his royal highness, the

prince of wales, will be there for the funeral. his family, his friends, and the millions in south africa, and those around the world, our morning and today. mourning him today. though humanity bears ever upwards, away from brutality. but it is not so. progress is not just handed down. it is one through struggle -- struggle.h nelson mandela was the embodiment of that struggle. the evil ofr forget apartheid and its affect. separate buses, separate

schools, and even separate pews in church. interracial relationships banned. a rolling which that explained man's inhumanity to man. this was made possible by extreme brutality, and some of this was by south african authorities. ,is journey spanned six decades through nearly three days of incarceration, through his negotiations that led to the end of apartheid. it was, as he said, a long road to freedom. there must've been times when nelson mandela felt that his fists were beating against a wall that would not be moved. but he never wavered. he famously said, he wanted to look for and achieve the ideal of a democratic and free

society. it was something for which you -- he was repaired to die. -- prepared to die. what sustained it was the belief in human dignity. and that each person has inherent worth. , the cries of an infant who dies because of will penetrate the noises of the modern city and its sealed cities. nelson mandela pierced the conscience of people around the world he read -- world. he considered it a part of his voice works not to rest until the evil of apartheid was ended.

there were so many who said no to apartheid in ways large and small. he visited just months after his release from prison and then again a number of times in the following years. mr. speaker, the character of shown in thea was grace with which he won. prison could have easily left him bitter. upon his release, he could've sought vengeance on those who did him wrong. magnetically -- to be magnanimous.

and he focused on a young woman who became his confident. became a powerful center of reconciliation. officials were brought of national unity. they were asked to break the spiral of recrimination and violence. africa was at its heart. determinationess in stepping up the fight against aids. it has been one of the great honours of my life to go to south africa and meet mandela. i remember discussing that issue in his office and hearing his determination to ensure that anti-retroviral drugs reached all those in need. here was a man of 88 who had

been imprisoned for decades and missed a lot of the rapid social change that had taken place, but who had the vision to see through the destructive attitudes towards aids in south africa. all these actions were marks of his extraordinary personal leadership. today, though challenges remain in south africa, that country is on a far more hopeful path because of what nelson mandela did. indeed, there are signs of hope across the whole continent in its growth, in its emerging middle class, and in the birth of new democracies. around the world, there already exist many monuments to nelson mandela. just a few hundred yards from here, in parliament square, the champion of democracy is cast in bronze, arm outstretched, mid- speech, as if beseeching those in this house to remember that democracy is a gift, and a gift to be used well. there has been a lot of debate, rightly, about how to secure his legacy. surely one part must be to rededicate ourselves to the task of eradicating poverty and

conflict in africa, in which our historic commitment to provide 0.7% of our gross national income in aid can ensure that britain plays her full part. of course, the most important monument to mandela must be the lessons he has taught us, that there is dignity and worth in every human being, that an ounce of humility is worth more than a ton of might, that lasting, long-term change needs patience, even the patience of a life-time, but that change can come with determination and sacrifice. it is with sadness that we meet here today to remember nelson mandela, but it is with gladness that we can say this -- it was a long walk to freedom, but the walk is over and freedom was won. for that, nelson mandela has the deepest respect of this house and his enduring place in history. >> edward miliband.

>> today, we remember the incomparable life of nelson mandela. this house traditionally gathers to pay tribute to those who have led our country. it is unusual for us to meet to honour the leader of another. why is it so essential that we commemorate the life of president mandela in this way? it is for simple reasons. he is an enduring and unique symbol of courage, hope and the fight against injustice. he teaches us the power of forgiveness, having showed no bitterness towards his captors, just the love of a country that could be so much better if all its people could be free. and he demonstrates, even to the most sceptical, the power of people and politics to change our world. that is why we gather here today. on behalf of my party, i send the deepest condolences to his widow, graça machel, the mandela family and all the people of south africa. we mourn with them. today is an opportunity to remember the extraordinary life and the extraordinary story of

nelson mandela. he led a movement, the african national congress, that liberated a country. he endured the suffering and sacrifice of 27 years in prison -- a son unable to attend his mother's funeral, a father unable to attend his son's. but in the face of such oppression, his spirit never bent or broke. offered the chance of release in 1985 after more than 20 years in jail on the condition that he give up the armed struggle, he refused. "i cannot sell my birthright, nor am i prepared to sell the birthright of my people to be free", he said. we honour him too because of the remarkable person the world found him to be after he walked out of prison in 1990 in those scenes that we all remember. as his old comrade archbishop

desmond tutu said, "suffering can embitter its victims, but equally it can ennoble the sufferer." there can be nothing more noble than determining not to seek revenge on your oppressors, but to seek reconciliation with them. he truly was, as archbishop tutu said, an icon of magnanimity. that is why he became not only the leader of a struggle but truly can be described as the father of a nation, as we have seen in the tributes and emotion that he has inspired since his death in the black and white communities of south africa. we honour him too because, for him, the struggle against injustice was a story that never ended. having been an activist who became a president, he was a president who became an activist once again, campaigning on causes from debt relief to hiv/aids to the war in iraq. we honour somebody, too, who

wore his extraordinary heroism with the utmost humility. a year after he gave up the presidency, he came to the labour party conference and described himself as "an unemployed pensioner with a criminal record." [laughter] he famously said to desmond tutu, who had teased him for his taste in gaudy shirts -- "it's pretty thick coming from a man who wears a dress in public." [laughter] his empathy led him to seek out not the most famous person in the room but the least, and his warmth made every person he met walk taller. so we honour a man who showed the true meaning of struggle, courage, generosity and humanity. but we gather here in our parliament, in britain, also to recognise that the history of our country was bound up with

his struggle, in a spirit of truth and reconciliation. south africa was, after all, once a british colony, but later britain would become, in nelson mandela's own words, "the second headquarters of our movement in exile." the prime minister and i, and thousands of others, went to sign the condolence book at south africa house on friday. it is easy to forget now that south africa house was not always such a welcoming place for the opponents of apartheid. so we should also remember today the hundreds of thousands of people who were the anti- apartheid movement in britain -- the people who stood month after month, year after year, on the steps of that embassy when the cause seemed utterly futile, the churches, trade unions, and campaigners who marched and supported the struggle financially, culturally and in so many other ways, the people who refused to buy south african produce and supported the call for sanctions -- people whose

names we do not know, from all over britain who were part of that struggle, as well as those who will be etched in history, including the leaders of the movement who found sanctuary in britain, such as ruth first, joe slovo, and others. if the house will allow me, i will add that there were also those in my own party who played such an important role, such as bob hughes, now in the house of lords, my right humble friend the member for neath and so many more. it may seem odd to a younger generation that apartheid survived as long as it did, given that it now seems to have been universally reviled all the world over. but of course the truth, and the history, is very different. the cause was highly unfashionable, often considered dangerous by those in authority and opposed by those in government. the prime minister was right a few years ago to acknowledge the history. it is in the spirit of what nelson mandela taught us to acknowledge the truth about the

past and, without rancour, to welcome the change that has come to pass, but also to honour his legacy by acknowledging that in every country, including our own, the battle against racial injustice still needs to be won. so we come here to honour the man, to acknowledge our history, and also for one final reason -- to recognise and uphold the universal values for which nelson mandela stood -- the dignity of every person, whatever his colour or creed, the value of tolerance and respect for all, and justice for all people wherever they may live and whatever oppression they may face. nelson mandela himself said, "i am not a saint. i am a sinner who keeps on trying." his extraordinary life calls on us all to keep on trying -- for nobler ideals, higher purposes, and for a bigger, not a smaller politics.

inspired by his example and the movement he led, we mourn his loss, we give thanks for his life, and we honour his legacy. >> mr. nick clegg. >> on behalf of the liberal democrats, let me add my voice to the many tributes to nelson mandela, the father of modern south africa. our thoughts and condolences are with his loved ones, the people of south africa, and everyone around the world grieving his loss. nelson mandela's message transcended the boundaries of nations, people, colours, and creeds, and his character transcended boundaries, too. he was a politician, but he appeared to be free of all the pettiness of politics. he was a warm human being with a mischievous wit, and yet seemed to rise above the normal human frailties of anger and hurt.

he was a man who was well aware of his place in history, but he did not want to be placed on a pedestal and was humble at all times. given qualities like that, it is little wonder that millions of people who did not meet him in person nonetheless feel that they have lost a hero and a friend. i never had the privilege of meeting nelson mandela myself, but, like so many other people, i almost feel as if i had. he clearly made a huge impact on all those whom he did meet. i remember paddy ashdown telling me, with a sigh, that his wife jane would regularly say that mandela was the funniest and most charming man she had ever met. as a student, i was one of the thousands of people who flooded into wembley stadium for the free nelson mandela concert to mark his 70th birthday. i remember wondering, as i stood there, how on earth this one man could live up to everyone's expectations if and when he was

finally released -- but, as a free man, nelson mandela not only met those expectations. he surpassed them. the challenge for south africa seemed almost impossible at the time. how could people who had spent so long divided in conflict, and had either perpetrated or suffered so much abuse, find it within themselves to forgive, to move on, and to build something together? well, mandela could and did, and the truly remarkable example of forgiveness he set made it possible for his country to be reborn as the rainbow nation. given the enormousness of mandela's achievements, we are all struggling to work out the best way to honour his legacy. i like to think that one of the things that he would want us to do in the house today is pay tribute to and support the individuals and organisations around the world that fight for

human rights and do not have a global name. right now, all over the world, there are millions of men, women and children are still struggling to overcome poverty, violence and discrimination. they do not have the fame or the standing of nelson mandela, but i am sure he would tell us that what they achieve and ensure in their pursuit of a more open, equal and just society shapes all our lives. campaigners like mary akrami, who works to protect and empower the women of afghanistan, sima samar, the head of the afghanistan independent human rights commission, and the committee of relatives of the detained and disappeared in honduras, which works in the shadow of threats and intimidation, are just three examples of individuals and organisations elsewhere in the world that deserve our loyalty and support just as much as the british campaigners in the anti- apartheid movement in london who showed unfailing loyalty to and support for nelson mandela during his bleakest days.

i, too, pay tribute to the right honorable member mr. hain and all his fellow campaigners for what they did at that time. all of this will make the way we mark tomorrow's international human rights day all the more significant, and britain can pay no greater tribute to nelson mandela than by standing up around the world for the values of human rights and equality for which he fought. when nelson mandela took his first steps to freedom, he made no call for vengeance, only forgiveness. he understood that dismantling apartheid's legacy was about more than just removing the most explicit signs of discrimination and segregation, and he recognised too that to build a brighter future south africa must confront the darkness of its past. in doing so, nelson mandela laid down a blueprint that has made it possible for other divided communities, such as in northern ireland, to reject violence,

overcome their differences and make a fresh beginning. that is why i hope, in communities where people are still struggling to replace violence and conflict with peace and stability that the principles of forgiveness and reconciliation that mandela embodied are followed by others, too. recently, for example, the house debated the alleged human rights abuses in sri lanka. surely there could be no better way for that country to heal its wounds and bring peace and unity to all its people than to follow mandela's example and emulate south africa's truth and reconciliation process. this, as i see it, is nelson mandela's lasting legacy to all of us -- to champion the defenders of human rights today and to know that wherever there is conflict and injustice, with hope and courage peace is always possible. as the prime minister reminded us earlier, at his 1964 trial mandela told the world that equality in south africa was an

ideal for which he was prepared to die. no one who has listened to those words can fail to be moved to hear a man so explicitly and courageously put his life on the line for freedom. as others have remarked, mandela famously liked to repeat the great saying that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." so on this year's human rights day and beyond, let us honour his memory by ensuring that the hope he gave lives on for all of those whose liberties and rights are still denied. >> mr. gordon brown. >> 51 years ago, directly across from this house in parliament square, standing in front of the statues of gladstone, disraeli, peel, palmerston, lincoln, and general smuts, and with his friend oliver tambo, nelson

mandela asked the question, when, if ever, a black man would be represented in that square. that day in june 1962 was an important one -- his first visit to london and possibly his last. he was on the edge of being arrested, imprisoned, put on trial twice -- once for his life and then spent 27 years incarcerated. it was, therefore, a great privilege, on behalf of the people of britain, to unveil in 2007 a statue of the first black man to be represented on that square -- nelson mandela himself, in the presence of nelson mandela and his wife. that statue of nelson mandela stands there now and forever. yes, his hands are outstretched, as the prime minister said, but his finger pointing upwards -- as it always did -- to the

heights. the man most responsible for the destruction of what people thought was indestructible -- the apartheid system -- and the man who taught us that no injustice can last forever. nelson mandela, the greatest man of his generation, yes, but across the generations one of the most courageous people you could ever hope to meet. winston churchill said that courage was the greatest human virtue of all, because courage everything else depended. nelson mandela had eloquence, determination, commitment, passion, wit and charm, but it was his courage that brought all those things to life. we sometimes think of courage as daring, bravado, risk-taking and recklessness, and nelson mandela had all those in admirable quantities, but he was the first to say that true courage depends not just on strength of willpower, but on strength of

belief. what drove mandela forward, and what made him the architect of a free south africa -- the first great achievement of nelson mandela -- was this burning belief that everyone, every man and woman, was equal, everyone born to be free, everyone created not with a destiny to be in poverty, but created to have dignity in life. the intensity with which nelson mandela believed this and his determination that he would never be paralysed by fear is something that is recorded for ever in a battered book that was the prison on robben island, brought into -- smuggled into the prison on

robben island, "the works of the works of william shakespeare. alongside his signature, "n. mandela", he has marked the words from "julius caesar" -- "cowards die many times before their deaths. the valiant never taste of death but once. it seems to me most strange that men should fear. seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come." remarkably, that amazing courage to stand up to evil stood with the lack of bitterness that has been described already today, forgiving his warders, his prosecutors, the would-be executioners. the most amazing story he told me was that on the night before they left prison he called all the anc prisoners together, saying, yes, they would be justified in acts of revenge, retaliation and retribution, but that there could never then be a strong, successful multiracial society, and that was his second great achievement -- to achieve change through reconciliation. but there was also a third achievement -- in refusing to

rest or relax when he gave up the presidency, he had a third great, historic, far less acknowledged, achievement to his name. he wrote that in the first part of his life he had climbed one great mountain, to end apartheid, but now in his later life he wanted to climb another great mountain -- to rid the world of poverty, and especially the outrage of child poverty. i need speak only of what i saw in the times that i worked with him -- how quietly and without fanfare he went about his work. in 2005 i flew to south africa to meet nelson mandela to persuade him to come to london so that he could then persuade the finance ministers of the need for debt relief to relieve poverty, and this he did. then in 2006, he and his wife graça machel -- a leader in her own right, who shared his ideals and will now carry on his legacy into the future -- he and she launched the british programme for education for every child so that we could be the first generation in history where every child went to school. he warned us when we had that press conference in mozambique that to get every child to school we would have to end

child labour, child marriage, and child trafficking, and that we would have to end the discrimination against girls, a campaign that he and his wife, graça machel, have been involved in ever since. typically, nelson mandela said at the beginning of the conference that the cause was so urgent that he had now come out of retirement so that he could prosecute the cause, and at the end of the press conference he said that it was now up to the younger generation and he was returning to his retirement. i visited him in south africa in the week that his son died of aids. while in mourning and in grief and shocked by the events, he insisted on coming out to the waiting press with me. he said that aids was not to be treated as a moral judgment and censoriously, it was to be treated exactly like the tuberculosis he had suffered, as a disease in need of cure. his greatness as vast as the continent he loved, showing there that his greatness was a

greatness of the human soul. my good fortune was to meet nelson mandela not so long after he left prison, and i remember his first greeting -- "ah," he said, "a representative of the british empire," and then he flashed that same smile that could light up a room and then the world. then 10 years ago, at the birth of my son john, i picked up the telephone and there was nelson mandela on the phone -- he, too, had lost a child in infancy, and from that time on, on his birthday, the day before my second son's, and on graça's birthday, the day of john's, we exchanged telephone calls on the days of these birthdays and presents, letters, and cards, the last only this october. raising money for children's causes was the purpose of nelson mandela's 90th birthday party in london, when president clinton and i were proud to pay tribute to him, before an auction where he gave the original copy of his famous "letter to a child." first, oprah winfrey bid for it,

then elton john. both of them surpassed a £1 million. oprah winfrey then went beyond that million. she was then told that she would have to pay in pounds and not dollars. [laughter] nelson mandela and i joked that it was time for another £1 million and that he should write another letter and sell it to elton john. nelson mandela's last public event was in hyde park, in london. again, it was to raise funds for children. sitting next to him, my task -- something i was uniquely incapable of doing -- was to explain who the celebrity acts were, what they were up to, and what they were about. he was particularly intrigued by amy winehouse, who is sadly no longer with us. i remember him going down to meet her and her joking with him that her husband and mandela had a great deal in common -- both of them had spent a huge amount of time in prison. [laughter] at that point, he wanted a drink, but graça, his wife, had banned drink from the occasion, at least for him because of his fragile health. i can never forget this

occasion -- mandela, with all these great achievements behind him, at the celebration party for his 90th birthday and surely entitled to a celebratory drink, hiding from his wife's view the glass of champagne that i had produced for him. very few people know that nelson mandela loved not only to tell stories, but to gossip, about everybody, from the spice girls and celebrities in sport to political leaders -- i will refrain from mentioning what he said about them, at least today. [laughter] but he admired and respected her majesty the queen, and he told me that he wanted the queen to invite an african rain princess from his tribe to a reception at buckingham palace. he had got nowhere with the diplomatic channels, so he decided to telephone her personally. the story goes of the conversation, in words that only mandela could use -- "hello, elizabeth, how's the duke?" [laughter] although the official minute says that the queen was non- committal, mandela got his way.

hung by mandela on the bare walls of that bleak prison cell was a facsimile of the british painting by a famous artist frederic watts. it is the haunting image he had in this prison cell of a blinded girl sitting on top of a globe of the world. the painting, entitled hope, is about the boldness of a girl to believe that, even when blinded and even with a broken harp and only one string, she could still play music. her and mandela's belief was that even in the most difficult and bleak of times, even when things seem hopeless, there could still be hope. i believe that that explains why over these past few days we have both mourned the death of mandela and celebrated his life with equal intensity. who else could unite the whole world of sport unanimously, in every continent of the world,

with applause? we are mourning because as long as mandela was alive we knew that even in the worst of disasters, amidst the most terrible of tragedies and conflict, amidst the evil that existed in the world, there was someone there, standing between us and the elements, who represented goodness and nobility. and we are celebrating today because the lessons that we have learned from him will live on. he teaches us that indeed no injustice can last for ever. he teaches us that whenever good people of courage come together, there is infinite hope. >> sir malcolm rifkind. >> on the day of mandela's release in 1990, i was waiting with many millions of people for him to emerge from prison. i remember a particular thought

at that time, that although he was a global figure -- the whole world knew of nelson mandela -- no one had the faintest idea what he looked like. no photograph of him had appeared since he went into prison 27 years earlier, as a relatively young man of 46 -- now he was emerging as a relatively old man of 73. i met him for the first time when he came to 10 downing street when john major was prime minister, and i recall that as he entered, the whole staff of no. 10 -- 70 or 80 people -- spontaneously had drawn themselves up into two lines to applaud him as he walked to the cabinet room. john major said that that was the first time that had ever happened since he had become prime minister. he was not a saint, as we have heard. he was a politician to his fingertips. he actually believed in the armed struggle in the earlier part of his career and perhaps to some degree for the rest of his career, but, unlike many in the african national congress, he eventually decided that ways

of peace were more likely to deliver than the armed struggle. i recall going to south africa four years after 1990 when he was president and having dinner with the then deputy defence minister of south africa, ronnie kasrils. kasrils was a white south african communist and a founding member of umkhonto we sizwe. he had been educated at the london school of economics and was a strong believer in the armed struggle. i said to him, "you are a member of the south african communist party and it was often argued at the time by the south african government that you and your colleagues were trained in the soviet union. was that true?" he said, "yes, it was true. we were trained in odessa, in ukraine." then i asked him why he believed in the armed struggle, particularly as nelson mandela eventually decided on a political solution. he said, "well, we believed that the white afrikaners, the apartheid government, would never give up power peacefully. it would only be the armed struggle that would get them out of power." i said to him, "is that what

they taught you in the soviet union?" i remember he groaned and said, "no, no, that is what they taught me at the lse." [laughter] i lived and worked in southern africa, mainly in southern rhodesia, for two years in the 1960's. i got to know south africa well, and i must confess that, at that time, i too assumed that there would be no peaceful resolution of the problems of apartheid and that, whether one liked it or not, it would only be by revolution or by armed struggle that they would change the political system. i was wrong, but i was wrong because there was not one hero in south africa, but two, and it is worth remembering this. it was not just nelson mandela, who undoubtedly deserves the vast bulk of the credit, but the south african president f.w. de klerk. not have been a peaceful resolution. in some ways, it was more difficult for de klerk than for

mandela. let me explain what i mean; it is a serious point. mandela was receiving power at a stage when most of the struggle had already been won, and de klerk was having to persuade his own people to give power up before they had been defeated. this was a different situation the world had not seen such a situation before. to his credit, de klerk realised that he needed the legitimacy of the electorate of south africa, who were, quite wrongly but in practice, were all white at that time. he called the referendum and, by the sheer force of his leadership, persuaded more than 60% of white south africans to accept that the days apartheid were over. even then, it required mandela, and it is to his credit, to go through long months of negotiation, not aay